Why do I have this feeling that the back-stabbing and petty politics of the Republican insiders are going to leave me completely unexcited about the presidential campaign, and more focused on electing conservatives to Congress as a counterweight to the (hoped for) new Republican President?

Fight for the Republican nominee we want and the defeat of Obama, but also commence preparations for Operation Counterweight.

That will be my strategy for 2012, focusing on critical races in which we can elect Republicans willing to stand up to the Republican President who will take the oath of office in January 2013, and keep the Republican Speaker of the House and Republican Senate Majority Leader from repeating the mistakes of the past.

As Mitt Romney inches toward the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, many conservative activists are increasingly focused on a different political prize for 2012: the Senate….

But some supporters of the Tea Party movement and other conservatives distrust Romney, deriding him as a moderate, and they hope to get a few of their candidates into the Senate to serve as a “bulwark” against him or President Barack Obama.

“Conservatives in Nebraska are very concerned about Romney and disappointed that he may be the nominee,” said John Arnold of the Lincoln Tea Party. “So the Senate has become much more important.” …

It is hard to overstate Tea Party dislike for Romney.

“I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than vote for Mitt Romney,” said Pete Harring of the MaineReFounders, a Tea Party group.

In more than a hundred interviews Reuters conducted with Tea Party activists since October, anti-Romney sentiment was prevalent.

So far I have identified three candidates for inclusion in Operation Counterweight:

Comments

Primary John Boehner! Primary John Boehner! Primary John Boehner! Primary John Boehner! Primary John Boehner! Primary John Boehner! Primary John Boehner! Primary John Boehner! Primary John Boehner! Primary John Boehner!

Hi Prof. Can you please check out my fellow combat wounded marine who is running for office in California. It’s an uphill battle here in San Diego. The district is CA-53. His name is Nick Popaditch. I think you will like what you see. His website is http://www.popaditchforcongress.com/.
He ran in 2010 against Bob Filner and lost by 20 points but like any marine worth his weight Nick knows how to adapt and overcome. Thanks. You have the best blog and insight on the right hands down.

That does seem like a good strategy no matter who the Pub nominee is. A more conservative Congress puts a leftward boundary on whoever is in the White House, though Obama, through his multiple acts of spitting on the political process, seems not to care.

But Romney will care, no doubt, so a Pub Senate and a more conservative Pub House with lots of members beholden to the Tea Party is a good idea.

When will people understand that the real issue in vulture capitalism is that the DEBT the vulture runs up, the debt which ultimately causes the failure, is the heart of the fraud?

This debt doesn’t arise from an “investment” or real “management cost” or any other value that the victim company gets in return for taking on the debt. The money removed by the vulture buys NOTHING for the victim in return, but rather that debt makes the costs of operating too great to continue and that’s what kills the business a going concern. That’s why this removal of money is immoral — it’s NOT a “value for value” transaction.

People will either understand this very soon, in which case Newt has a chance to be the nominee, or they’ll understand it THIS FALL, after Obama explains it to them. And we know what will happen then. I hope there are conservative bloggers out there articulate enough to explain this in time.

When will people understand that the real issue in vulture capitalism is that the DEBT the vulture runs up, the debt which ultimately causes the failure, is the heart of the fraud?

This debt doesn’t arise from an “investment” or real “management cost” or any other value that the victim company gets in return for taking on the debt. The money removed by the vulture buys NOTHING for the victim in return, but rather that debt makes the costs of operating too great to continue and that’s what kills the business as a going concern. That’s why this removal of money is immoral — it’s NOT a “value for value” transaction.

People will either understand this very soon, in which case Newt has a chance to be the nominee, or they’ll understand it THIS FALL, after Obama explains it to them. And we know what will happen then. I hope there are conservative bloggers out there articulate enough to explain this in time.

The Private Equity guys got into the company somehow. They didn’t force themselves onto the company.

Either they were invited, because the management of the company couldn’t get any other funds, or they bought their way in because the management of the company couldn’t get the stock price to a reasonable level for how much capital was locked into the company.

In either case, the existing management of the company was failing. Either failing because their cash flow was too low to carry other kinds of debt, or failing because they were giving poor return on the capital locked up.

There is such a thing as stranded cash and stranded asset value, that can be unlocked or taken out and put to a better, more productive use. The victim company’s management often is reluctant to give up the cash or asset because it lessens their stature, and they are often too stupid to know where else to put it.

And you as an individual to criticize what the PE guys do are spectacularly unqualified to say it was bad for the economy.

Don’t you get it that if the stock prices and debt rates and asset values of the company and the market were such that the PE guys could even pull the transaction off, that the market was telling you that something was amiss with the business and it needed a change? Can’t you, as a free market republican, understand even that – that the market really does know more than you do as an individual.

I second the support for Ted Cruz. Cruz is going up against a Romney-type leviathan who is dumping millions of his own personal wealth into his campaign, David Dewhurst.

Dewhurst, now Lt. Governor of Texas, virtually killed the Sanctuary City/anti-TSA bills with the help of another RINO, Joe Strauss. The plus side for Texans if Perry doesn’t take the nomination is that it prevents Dewhurst from becoming governor and believe me, you don’t want Dewhurst taking Kay Bailey Hutchison’s seat as he will be the same as the old. KBH has finally decided to step down because too many people can now look up her record on the internet.

Folks, why in the world do you think that Mitt Romney doesn’t understand or care about P&L, about income versus costs?

What in his history of being what Perry calls a vulture capitalists causes you to believe that he would love or tolerate spending more than he took in?

Such a projection onto Romney doesn’t make sense. He’s a hard core numbers guy, that has spent a career looking at revenue and costs, and looking carefully about where the next dollar spent will show value or return.

Yet there persists a muddle-minded narrative that he is squishy or soft.

He isn’t soft. He’s as good of a money manager as this country can produce. He’ll likely be the same in the White House.

Because he’s benefited from big government, he’s made a fortune using other people’s money, and he’s in it for himself — and if that includes benefiting himself and his cronies, my guess is he will. Tigers don’t change their stripes. The guy talks out of both sides of his mouth, and has no track record of standing for any causes or doing anything of benefit for the public good.

How can you look at his commitment to his faith as a lay leader in Boston – his taking time out of his own life to work with people of all economic levels and backgrounds and nationalities and possibly come up with that conclusion?

Even the NY Times has documented his commitment to others.

You just can’t credibly say what you are saying about Romney in light of all the time he spent for free working with the congregants on their own problems, sitting at hospitals, listening to a trouble youth.

Romney penchant for changing even deep core principle positions based on political expediency is unquestionable. That being the case, it is certainly possible, just as likely, and arguably more likely that Romney’s philanthropic activities were likewise based on political expediency, a pose taken for the camera.

If Romney is such a good money manager, then why did he dump the cost of Romneycare on the rest of the 49 states?

Romney was on O’Reilly and when asked about the cost of Romneycare, stated quite clearly that it was ALWAYS meant to be a federal/state partnership. In 2010, it was so insolvent that Governor Patrick asked for over $400 million from the Stimulus Bill to fund Romney’s signature acheivement. Patrick didn’t get the $400 mil, he got $764 million just so Obama and the Dems could sweeten the pot.

In other words, the crucial question ahead of us in America is, “What will we get for this next dollar spent by the government.”

And to that question, Romney, with his background in capital management and investing and running the numbers to find out – Romney is uniquely qualified to be a great leader at this time. More than Gingrich (who voted for plenty that we couldn’t afford), more than Perry, more than Santorum.

I’m not saying magnificence. Obama was magnificent, and look where that got us. We’ll be making a huge mistake if we wait for a savior to come when there is no Savior but the one that comes when it is all over.

I’m saying savvy with money, very competent leader, clearly a fundamentally moral person. The fact that he doesn’t sweep you off your feet with soaring rhetoric is a befit, not a detriment. The ones that do that are usually hollow empty souls.

Take a look at Romney’s family, his career, his accomplishments. He ain’t empty.

Quayle, if the answer is to NOT have the government act to spend that next dollar, will Mr. Romney recognize that as the answer?

Or, will he just go on willy-nilly with his fellow denizens of the professional/political complex, and continue to perpetuate the Biggest Lie of All:

All you need to do is show up for work or go to school; we have experts who have the answers to your housing needs, your health care needs, your financial needs … no need to plan for your future or actively manage your career, since we can do a better job than you can; just trust us to solve those problems FOR you.

That lie has led millions to place their hopes in their union, their employer, and/or their government to take care of them, instead of doing the hard work of securing their own future … and they are the ones who are hurting as a result. Others who placed less faith in the Lie, and did that work, are the ones better off today.

It’s about more than the numbers … it is about the principles that drive those numbers. It’s way past time for our elected leaders to stop acting like omniscient “saviors”, and speak the truth.

As of right now, here in New York, Operation Counterweight appears essential.

Seriously? Santorum didn’t even try to get on the ballot in VA. He doesn’t have the organization because he isn’t a real candidate. If you lost your last election by a landslide, you’re not a real candidate.

It is better for conservatives to consolidate around Perry or Newt – they at least tried to get on the VA ballot before the insiders changed the rules to keep them out of it.

Give it a rest with the ‘Santorum lost by a landslide’ schtick, as if that was local to Santorum. That was in 2006, a year when the PA governor also lost as part of the Democrat rollover of the GOP, in fact, the PA governor lost by a wider margin than did Santorum. Instead, speak the whole truth, that Santorum won 4 of 5 elections in PA, running as a conservative in a deeply blue state – and succeeding. His ‘electability’ quotient, were such a thing quantifiable, far exceeds that of Romney.

3/4 of the Republicans across America suffered the same fate. My point is that is not a reflection on Santorum, but on the electoral environment of the moment in 2006. This is why I use the word ‘schtick’, because that is how you employ it against Santorum.

PA is not deeply blue. It could be that Pennsylvanians just sit out some elections en masse when they don’t like the candidate or feel lukewarm. They are pretty stubborn folk up there.l

My personal obs are from mid 2010. I saw highway bilboards “Show us The Birth Certificate” in west Pa . My guess is Santorum lost because his former voters stayed out – I would need to check the total number of votes 00-06 specifically Le High County.Le high must have the biggest Walmart in ever home. & the Ghetto vote won out.

Since 2007, Santorum has been a lawyer, consultant, etc., as part of the Ethics & Public Policy Center.

Trust me, I’m no Santorum guy. He lost me way back in 2001 when he tried to shoehorn into the No Child Left Behind act a requirement that public school children be taught Intelligent Design as a ‘scientific’ counter to evolution. Intelligent Design is anything but scientific.

I agree that Mia Love is an attractive, promising candidate–who has some work to do before she’s ready for prime time.

But if I understand Bill correctly, he is endorsing her without explaining why she is superior to her opponents.

I share her national priorities, but I’d like to know how she’s done in her two years as mayor. Abolish the Energy & Education Departments and take apart the Congressional Black Caucus from inside? Sounds great, but members of her district will want to know how she will serve them better than her opponents would.

Or, like a certain black politician on the Left and, perhaps, one Elizabeth Warren, does Mia plan to start running for higher office even before fully moving into her latest one?

I wish Love well and hope that the early indications about her hold true, but every politician deserves skepticism. Every politician deserves due diligence.

Of course, I’m a meanie who keeps pointing out that Palin resigned during her first term and Romney declined to run for a second one. 😉 Politicians can get my interest by talking a great conservative game–but experience dictates that such attention be shelved, hopefully temporarily, in favor of skeptical scrutiny. Read. My. Lips.

“Because he’s benefited from big government, he’s made a fortune using other people’s money, and he’s in it for himself . . . ”

Well, thank goodness. I’m in it for myself, too. In fact, I’m so much of a reprobate that I think everyone ought to be in it for themselves. “Individuals pursuing their own self-interests”, as one particular old fart put it, is what makes the world run successfully.

Want to know who I fear and hate? The guy who tells us he’s fighting for everyone else but not himself. He’s either a liar, or a committed communist. Neither would make an acceptable leader.

I can think of reasons why Romney wouldn’t be my first choice. (My first choice self-destructed, again, just as I predicted.) But the fact that he may be in it for himself isn’t one of those reasons. I want him to help build a recovered strong economy so that he can get even richer than he already is, because by doing so, he’ll drag the rest of us along.

Mitt Romney, in the wake of his New Hampshire primary victory, the former governor likens himself to President Barack Obama. During an appearance on CBS today, Romney said his job-cutting actions at his Bain Capital investment firm were no different from Obama’s bailouts of the U.S. auto industry.

Romney said, quote- “In the general election I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler – closed factories, closed dealerships laid off thousands and thousands of workers – he did it to try to save the business,” unquote

No self respecting conservative Republican, let alone a Constitutional Conservative Tea Party Patriot, would ever even think of voting for a Liberal Republican Party establishment crony RINO Obama facsimile like Romney.. We would not, and will never, support and vote for that lying hypocritical crony RINO Obama-ite Republican, period.

The Republican Party establishment, and colluding Independents, not to mention the far left liberal media, are absolutely determined to put that Liberal RINO Romney, in the Republican Party Nomination seat, and then the White House, instead of Newt, which would be the death nill of the Tea Party Conservative influence, thus would destroy any and all Constitutional Conservative Tea Party causes and issues to be implemented, let alone addressed..

Romney is the Anti-Tea Party candidate, who is being touted as the sensible moderate middle class electable Republican. Romney will absolutely maintain the status quo, as well as destroy Reagan Conservatism, forever.

Romney is the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan, and Reaganism.

Who do we really want to be at America’s helm, as the next U.S. President..Someone who exemplifies Reagan’s conservatism, courage, morality, integrity, honor, and ethics, ie- core conservative values and principles, or Obamacratic liberalism, cronyism, hypocrisy, and absolutely no personal character qualities of worth, whatsoever at all.